Being neither a Catholic nor a religious scholar, I'm in no position to offer opinions on the Roman Catholic Church or its doctrine. Yet it seems to me that conservatives might learn a thing or two from Pope Francis when it comes to messaging and tone.

The pope, it is widely reported, has "recast the Catholic Church's image" by focusing on its "inviting, merciful aspects" -- even "shocking," as The Washington Post put it -- to a planeload of reporters in an impromptu interview last week. Regarding homosexuality, he asserted, "Who am I to judge?"

Well, OK, that's not exactly what he said. The pope, answering a question about celibate gay priests, noted, "If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?" If -- which is a far cry from much of the public perception about the incident.

But perception matters. Most members of the press thought this moment quite remarkable, though really, it shouldn't strike anyone with even the slightest curiosity as exceptional. The pope's "who am I to judge" formulation is about as old as his institution itself. The church's catechism says gays "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." This has been standard treatment for nearly everyone -- in theory, if not always in practice -- since the Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged incident.

What the pope did not do, as far as I can tell, was announce his support for gay marriage. Nor did he claim that homosexual activity is no longer a sin. He simply articulated one of the more compelling messages of his church's teachings.

In this way, the incident is reminiscent of how much of the press treats classical liberal ideas -- with either willful ignorance or a misleading grasp of the basics but almost always making sure to focus on the most extreme and cartoonish aspects of ideology. Guess what. Most of us haven't read an Ayn Rand book since we were in our teens, and many of us weren't too crazy about them when we did.

While the pope has circumvented the most negative perceptions about his institutions, conservatives have struggled to do the same. It begins with the tenor of rhetoric. Conservatives can make a powerful argument about how free markets -- rather than an expanding welfare state -- are the key to stronger communities, the way to escape from poverty and the key to improving income mobility, or they can call everyone a bunch of moochers. They can argue that traditional families are a public good and the foundation to our success, or they can obsess about sodomy laws. You can talk about strengthening our legal immigration system or weave a colorful tale about the cantaloupe-sized ankles of drug-running illegal Mexican immigrants. You can stress the morality of protecting nascent human life, or you can wander into pseudo-medical terrain about rape to rationalize your position.

These sorts of blunders don't happen as often as the press would have you believe, but they do happen too often.

Not long ago, Pope Francis gave a homily in which he claimed that atheists could also find salvation. Though I was excited about this development for a couple of days (never hurts to have a backup plan, after all), the church soon clarified his comments. Apparently, the catechism says that atheists can find salvation but that those who reject the teachings of Jesus Christ cannot. So nothing's changed. But, if I may, this vicar of Christ doesn't sound like a jerk about it. And if you're a politician, that's a more valuable skill than any you can imagine.

This Pope is getting good press because the media wants him to be the anti-Benedict. They don’t really respect him anymore than his predecessor. They are only using Francis’ words out of context to bash conservatives.

Arguable. While English post-Reformation Protestantism was dominant, you overlook Spanish and French colonization which was entirely Roman Catholic. Maryland was a Catholic colony as were other parts of the middle and southern colonies.

The author is wandering in the wilderness in search of a rational thought.

The Pope says “If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?” and the media and especially the author think he’s so wise.

If a Conservative, say Rush, said “If they accept the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge them?” The media would say “the leader of the conservative movement appears to have lost his moral compass”.

6
posted on 08/02/2013 3:38:52 PM PDT
by Balding_Eagle
(When America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)

What you say is no doubt true, but, and I think you will agree with me, I would rather live in a country that is 99.6 percent Roman Catholic than in one populated by the current inhabitants of what I was taught is the “cradle of civilization”.

It does have to do with (as it appears, from the source publication) US conservatives, though. And FWICS (taking up the invitation to discuss the subject), the author is not making a good case, especially here:

While the pope has circumvented the most negative perceptions about his institutions, conservatives have struggled to do the same. It begins with the tenor of rhetoric. Conservatives can make a powerful argument about how free marketsrather than an expanding welfare stateare the key to stronger communities, the way to escape from poverty and the key to improving income mobility, or they can call everyone a bunch of moochers. They can argue that traditional families are a public good and the foundation to our success, or they can obsess about sodomy laws. You can talk about strengthening our legal immigration system or weave a colorful tale about the cantaloupe-sized ankles of drug-running illegal Mexican immigrants. You can stress the morality of protecting nascent human life, or you can wander into pseudo-medical terrain about rape to rationalize your position.

The notion of selling the good while ignoring the evil is ineffective and gives the upper hand to the evil, especially when the author uses liberal stereotypes of conservatives. If you look in the Bible, it is evident that the message of God has always been unpopular with sinful society at large, but that does not mean that the message must be soft-pedaled (remember Isaiah 30:10s injunction against speaking smooth things). Many prophets died to deliver that message, and of course the Messiah suffered the worst of all for its sake. God will indeed step in at some point, as He always has.

Right. They post these articles about protestants are wrong and are all going to hell or purgatory or a weight station or a giant Wal-Mart parking lot and when they get criticized in return its an attack.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.